IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 180 of 189 · 5,670 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung has filed a petition to institute an IPR against KPN’s U.S. Patent 8,881,235 covering service‑based authentication in cellular networks, arguing that the claims are obvious over 3GPP standards, an IETF draft, Aldera, and Naslund. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. Before a final decision was issued, the parties reached a contractual settlement and NEC declared withdrawal of the action. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by NEC.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to revoke European Patent EP 3 430 921 B1, owned by Juul Labs International, Inc. and directed to vaporization device systems. The Court revoked the patent entirely with effect for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden, and ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG et al.
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 645 714 before the Local Division Munich. Before the closure of the written procedure, the parties reached a contractual agreement, and NEC declared withdrawal of the action. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by NEC.
Sanofi Mature IP & Others v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. & Others (UPC_CFI_145/2024 and related cases)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning four related patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466. The claimants, a group of Sanofi entities, sought substitution of Sanofi Mature IP by Sanofi SA following a corporate reorganization in which Sanofi Mature IP was dissolved without liquidation and its assets, including the patent in suit, were universally transferred to Sanofi SA. The defendants raised no objections at the preliminary interim conference, and the Court granted the substitution, holding that it had no consequence on the proceedings under Rules 306 and 310 RoP.
Individual Plaintiff v.OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV
The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court rejected an infringement action brought by the holder of European patent EP 2 *** (relating to mandibular advancement devices for treating obstructive sleep apnea) against OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV. The court found neither literal infringement nor infringement by equivalence, as functional equivalence was lacking. The court confirmed the plaintiff had timely filed the main proceedings after obtaining evidence preservation, but lifted the preservation order and ordered the return of seized goods, with the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s patent on modified PH20 hyaluronidase enzymes, arguing the claims lack adequate written description and enablement. The petition cites extensive expert analysis and prior‑art exhibits to show undue experimentation would be required to identify the claimed mutants.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 36 claims of Neurelis' nasal benzodiazepine formulation patent are obvious over Gwozdz, Meezan ’962 and Cartt ’784, rendering the patent entirely unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN have settled their IPR dispute over a location‑based services patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and KPN settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate six IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,667,669 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review before the PTAB.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom firm KPN settled multiple U.S., German and Chinese patent lawsuits via a comprehensive license and non‑assertion agreement covering several KPN patents.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Coretronic’s IPR petition on its projection‑type image display patent. The owner contends the petitioners lack a reasonable likelihood of success because the cited references do not disclose or make obvious the claimed moveable mounting base. The Board is asked to reject the petition.
Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.
Google’s expert Mark Crovella files a reply declaration defending the ’898 patent against Dr. Myler’s claim constructions. He contends the terms are plain, the prior art discloses all claim elements, and the obviousness position should not change.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics and Dutch telecom firm KPN settled their disputes, prompting the PTAB to terminate six inter partes review proceedings before they were instituted.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
AT&T and Nokia jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑00451 against Adaptive Spectrum's patent 9,954,631, filing a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination, ending the proceeding before any trial was instituted.
Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.
Google filed a reply in IPR2025‑00472 challenging BrodTi’s online‑advertising patent. The petitioner attacks the patent owner’s claim constructions and argues that the prior art makes the claims obvious under §103.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. opposes Coretronic and Optoma's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,549,226, arguing the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success due to flawed claim constructions and insufficient prior‑art support. The Patent Owner seeks denial of institution.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 36 claims of Neurelis’s intranasal benzodiazepine patent are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering the patent entirely unpatentable.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Cambridge Industries' request to review the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Applied Optoelectronics' patents, leaving the prior institution denials in place.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 36 claims of Neurelis’s intranasal benzodiazepine patent are obvious over prior art references Gwozdz, Meezan ’962, and Cartt ’784, rendering the patent entirely unpatentable.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Applied Optoelectronics successfully defended its 9,523,826 patent as the PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of Cambridge Industries’ inter partes review petition. The Board found no abuse of discretion, rejecting the petitioner’s new data and APA arguments.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries seeks a Director rehearing to overturn the PTAB’s discretionary denial of IPR2025‑00435, arguing that the “settled expectations” rule lacks statutory basis and unfairly protects older patents. The petition cites statutory provisions, case law, and district‑court data to demonstrate the rule’s inconsistency with patent law and the APA.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Applied Optoelectronics successfully defended the Director’s discretionary denial of Cambridge Industries’ IPR petition. The petitioner’s request for rehearing, based on new informal survey data, was rejected as unsupported and lacking any APA or due‑process violation.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
AT&T and Nokia, together with patent owner ASSIA, have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,954,631 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and end the proceeding.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The USPTO denied Cambridge Industries' request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00433, leaving the original denial in place.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla challenges Intellectual Ventures’ IPR on patent 6,894,639, arguing the Board correctly applied claim construction and prior art. The Director is urged to deny the patent owner’s request for review, leaving the institution intact.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla’s request for rehearing of the Director Review decision was denied after the Board found the petitioner failed to justify inconsistent claim‑construction positions across the IPR and district court.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES, Inc.’s mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness and anticipation grounds.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on its data‑analytics patent. The Patent Owner argues the Board ignored required consistency in claim construction and the indefiniteness of claim terms, making the institution improper.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.